Who is the "expert?"

[rando]

If I were unwilling to interact with traffic in the 35-40 MPH range I'd never be able to leave my street. Is
this the bar you want to set for transportational cycling?

I'm not setting any bar. I'm just saying different riders prefer different conditions. some of those riders may be more comfortable on high speed roads with a bike lane, lower speed alternate routes, etc.

[LittleBigMan]

Intown Bicycles is the LBS I use, and I know Mike well. In fact the link I posted to my map of Piedmont in this thread was really a route from downtown to Intown Bicycles (straight up Piedmont, right on 10th, left on Monroe). I was there Thursday, spent too much money, and chatted with Mike for awhile.
Good. Keep chatting and spending there too much.

:D

(I use the same direct route from my job downtown to Mike's. It's very easy. :p)

[LittleBigMan]

I'm just saying different riders prefer different conditions. some of those riders may be more comfortable on high speed roads with a bike lane, lower speed alternate routes, etc.
I agree. Nobody can dictate to another cyclist their preferences.

It has to be a personal choice made freely.

Some people will always prefer to be as far away from motorists as possible. I'm cool with that. :)

I'm also cool that not everyone wants a "barren" cycling landscape, without any bike facilities, like lanes and paths.

And some people want to hit the sidewalks.

All these choices have implications in planning cycling transportation strategy.

That's why I say to those who fight against "VC", don't rule us out! We have an important part to play in the big picture of cycling transportation, sort of like whales have an important part in the big picture of ecological preservation. If we disappear, it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.

[Spike3905]

A proper policy regarding bicycle transportation should be based on the welfare of cyclists, not on any other consideration.

This conclusion reflects a point of view that is (a) satisfied with the status quo; and/or (b) hopelessly naive about the politics of change. Regarding the former, if the only concern is the welfare of the minuscule percentage of the population you define as "cyclists" then current policy regarding bicycle transportation will continue indefinitely. Regarding the latter, if you truly seek change in said policy then a much broader base of political support must be built based upon an array of societal benefits that can be produced by a robust bicycle transportation policy.

[joejack951]

This conclusion reflects a point of view that is (a) satisfied with the status quo; and/or (b) hopelessly naive about the politics of change. Regarding the former, if the only concern is the welfare of the minuscule percentage of the population you define as "cyclists" then current policy regarding bicycle transportation will continue indefinitely. Regarding the latter, if you truly seek change in said policy then a much broader base of political support must be built based upon an array of societal benefits that can be produced by a robust bicycle transportation policy.

What do you think the current policy is? I see it as mostly a "keep cyclists out of the way" policy instead of a "cyclists are vehicle drivers with all the same rights and obligations as other vehicle drivers" policy. I'd be much happier with the latter than the former (which is what I consider the current policy).

[The Human Car]

What do you think the current policy is? I see it as mostly a "keep cyclists out of the way" policy instead of a "cyclists are vehicle drivers with all the same rights and obligations as other vehicle drivers" policy. I'd be much happier with the latter than the former (which is what I consider the current policy).
The problem is the transition from one policy to the other equates to: Cyclists just stay off the road. The stress should be on the comfort and efficiency of all traffic and vehicle drivers and I strongly believe modern roadway designs they should afford opportunities for a cyclist to be out of the way of motorists OR opportunities for motorists to easily pass a cyclist.

It is failure to stress or even address the latter by both bike lane advocates and VC advocates has been a huge oversight and has created a huge mess. With VC advocating for WOL and shoulders is the same thing as advocating to keep cyclists to out of the way of motorists. VC has been as much to blame for the “keep cyclists out of the way” attitude as any one else.

[Spike3905]

What do you think the current policy is? I see it as mostly a "keep cyclists out of the way" policy instead of a "cyclists are vehicle drivers with all the same rights and obligations as other vehicle drivers" policy. I'd be much happier with the latter than the former (which is what I consider the current policy).

I agree with your definition of current policy. But your alternative policy of "cyclists are vehicle drivers with all the same rights and obligations as other vehicle drivers" does nothing to change auto-centric community design and infrastructure investment patterns. While sounding noble, in reality your policy perpetuates the status quo by assuming that roads should continue to be specifically designed for automobiles, rather than ensuring maximum mobility from a variety of modes. If we assume that the solution is simply a matter of collective behavior change -- and not fundamental design -- then the "keep cyclists out of the way" policy will reign supreme.

[joejack951]

I agree with your definition of current policy. But your alternative policy of "cyclists are vehicle drivers with all the same rights and obligations as other vehicle drivers" does nothing to change auto-centric community design and infrastructure investment patterns. While sounding noble, in reality your policy perpetuates the status quo by assuming that roads should continue to be specifically designed for automobiles, rather than ensuring maximum mobility from a variety of modes. If we assume that the solution is simply a matter of collective behavior change -- and not fundamental design -- then the "keep cyclists out of the way" policy will reign supreme.

How does that follow? If cyclists are thought of as vehicle drivers, that means they will be using the roads. If cyclists are going to be using the roads, slow moving vehicles MUST be incorporated into the design, whether that be designing in space for easier passing or keeping the speed limit low to help faster traffic transistion past slower traffic more smoothly. There is no traffic lane that I have ever encountered that was suitable only for an automobile but not for me on my bike. The roads are already "accomodating" enough (wide, smooth, etc.). What needs to be changed is the attitude that cyclists don't belong on those same roads.

Any fundamental design change to incorporate cyclists is implying that cyclists are of a lesser status than they currently are, which is a vehicle driver who is allowed to use the roadways like any other vehicle driver. That fundamental right needs to become ingrained into the minds of people, starting with cyclists, before we can expect any significant change to happen.

[genec]

I agree. Nobody can dictate to another cyclist their preferences.

It has to be a personal choice made freely.

Some people will always prefer to be as far away from motorists as possible. I'm cool with that. :)

I'm also cool that not everyone wants a "barren" cycling landscape, without any bike facilities, like lanes and paths.

And some people want to hit the sidewalks.

All these choices have implications in planning cycling transportation strategy.

That's why I say to those who fight against "VC", don't rule us out! We have an important part to play in the big picture of cycling transportation, sort of like whales have an important part in the big picture of ecological preservation. If we disappear, it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.

It's not a matter of "fighting against VC," it is however a matter of getting the strict VCers to lighten up with regard to facilities... If the VCers ruled the world, there would be nothing for "the other folks" that have other preferences. Our resident strict VC here on BF has declared often for instance that bike lanes should not exist, in any form, past present or future. (not having any idea what BL may evolve to in the future.) Of course he then goes on to soften his view when regarding bridges, tunnels and other long stretches of intersectionless road.

Look VC works... when motorists co-operate. But in the strictest VC mindset, BL are not allowed... and paths are not adequate.

[joejack951]

The problem is the transition from one policy to the other equates to: Cyclists just stay off the road. The stress should be on the comfort and efficiency of all traffic and vehicle drivers and I strongly believe modern roadway designs they should afford opportunities for a cyclist to be out of the way of motorists OR opportunities for motorists to easily pass a cyclist.

It is failure to stress or even address the latter by both bike lane advocates and VC advocates has been a huge oversight and has created a huge mess. With VC advocating for WOL and shoulders is the same thing as advocating to keep cyclists to out of the way of motorists. VC has been as much to blame for the “keep cyclists out of the way” attitude as any one else.

Making passing easier and keeping cyclists out of the way are two different things. There are situations where passing should not be taking place and the wide outside lane is the best compromise to keep the space but not imply that cyclists should always be out of the way.

The vehicular cycling position has always been that cyclists are drivers of vehicles and should act and be treated as such. No vehicle is supposed to be kept out of the way in such a way that it involves operating in a manner that contradicts the rules of the road. Both speed positioning and destination positioning need to be accounted for when designing roads. Basing road designs on just one aspect of cycling (often being a slow moving vehicle) is a recipe for failure.

[The Human Car]

Making passing easier and keeping cyclists out of the way are two different things.

Exactly! So why are you keeping making (safe) passing easier out of the equation?

[John Forester]

It's not a matter of "fighting against VC," it is however a matter of getting the strict VCers to lighten up with regard to facilities... If the VCers ruled the world, there would be nothing for "the other folks" that have other preferences. Our resident strict VC here on BF has declared often for instance that bike lanes should not exist, in any form, past present or future. (not having any idea what BL may evolve to in the future.) Of course he then goes on to soften his view when regarding bridges, tunnels and other long stretches of intersectionless road.

Look VC works... when motorists co-operate. But in the strictest VC mindset, BL are not allowed... and paths are not adequate.

There are no future bike lanes, not yet, and nobody has any idea of what they might be. Therefore, it is utterly foolish to accept undesirable current bike lanes on the hope that, someday, by some magic, these will become desirable road designs.

You talk about giving people their preferences. Vehicular cycling is using the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I say quite flatly that no person who refuses to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles should be using the roadway (or, if a pedestrian, according to the pedestrian rules). The person who refuses to obey the rules is both a danger to himself and to others, and is creating one more difficulty for all those who do obey the rules, to say nothing about the social disapproval being so generated.

Bike-lane stripes contradict that principle and confuse most road users; they should not be used.

[Spike3905]

Any fundamental design change to incorporate cyclists is implying that cyclists are of a lesser status than they currently are, which is a vehicle driver who is allowed to use the roadways like any other vehicle driver. That fundamental right needs to become ingrained into the minds of people, starting with cyclists, before we can expect any significant change to happen.

What cyclist would argue with a cyclist's right to use the road? But are you really saying that American roads as currently designed represent the ideal infrastructure for bicycle transportation? If so, are you also saying that European cities with high bike mode share -- but a very different approach to urban road design -- should scrap what they have and adopt the American model?

And do you oppose bike parking because cyclists should use the same parking spaces motorists do? And do you also oppose showers in the workplace for cyclists because other vehicle drivers don't shower after their commute?

Sorry, but your argument smacks of blind adherence to ideology while lacking logic or common sense.

[genec]

You talk about giving people their preferences. Vehicular cycling is using the roadway in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I say quite flatly that no person who refuses to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles should be using the roadway (or, if a pedestrian, according to the pedestrian rules). The person who refuses to obey the rules is both a danger to himself and to others, and is creating one more difficulty for all those who do obey the rules, to say nothing about the social disapproval being so generated.


I say fine... you wrote the wrong book... it should have been called "Effective Driving" and it should have addressed the millions of motorists that "refuse to obey the rules" as clearly evidenced by the 45,000+ that die each year, and the uncountable number that speed down the roads daily.

[The Human Car]

you wrote the wrong book...
+1 :beer:

[joejack951]

Exactly! So why are you keeping making (safe) passing easier out of the equation?

My translation: So why do you keep taking (safe) passing out of the equation?

Did I get that right? :)

If so, my answer: Where did I do that?

[rando]

dedicated bike lane = safe passing?

[joejack951]

What cyclist would argue with a cyclist's right to use the road?

Plenty would. Here's some quotes where Bikeforum members sound off about cyclists using roads that they just shouldn't use:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4742650&postcount=186
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4743425&postcount=190
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4761715&postcount=198
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4958231&postcount=9
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4958321&postcount=14
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4958494&postcount=37

Those are just some of the most recent comments I remember. I could find many more if you'd like.

But are you really saying that American roads as currently designed represent the ideal infrastructure for bicycle transportation? If so, are you also saying that European cities with high bike mode share -- but a very different approach to urban road design -- should scrap what they have and adopt the American model?

No, not every road is ideal when other traffic is taken into consideration. The same could be said for driving any vehicle on certain roads though. But, a cyclist could, if he wanted to, bike on every road which is accessible to motorized traffic. Obviously, it would be illegal to do in some cases but that is besides the point.

The European cities with a high bike mode share have always had a high bike mode share. The system they came up with to seperate motorized traffic from cyclists works sufficiently only because travel distances are so short that the inconvenience of using the sidepaths with their seperately timed signals does not amount to much of a delay. The only reason why people continue to use bicycles is because getting around by automobile is even more inconvenient. Those cities could have saved a lot of time, money, and effort by simply allowing cyclists to continue to use the roads as they did before. Cycling would be more convenient and motoring would still be just as inconvenient.

Replicating the same system in the US would require a complete tear down and rebuild of most established cities. The distances involved in getting anywhere in a US city would also make using the sidepaths a huge inconvenience, not to mention needing to reeducate every motorist as to how to deal with the sidepaths.

And do you oppose bike parking because cyclists should use the same parking spaces motorists do? And do you also oppose showers in the workplace for cyclists because other vehicle drivers don't shower after their commute?

Sorry, but your argument smacks of blind adherence to ideology while lacking logic or common sense.

My argument is one from someone who realizes that huge infrastructure changes are not going to happen overnight or in the near future. There is no other system created anywhere in the world that allows a cyclist to have the freedom of travel the way we currently do in the US using the existing roads as vehicle drivers. I also believe that the current infrastructure (I'm not addressing the attitudes of people now) is fantastic for cycling. An attitude adjustment would be nice for a small percentage of motorists but it's nothing to get overly worked up about. An attitude adjustment for cyclists, on the other hand, could vastly change the overall attitude towards cycling in this country. If cyclists started acting as though they really did have all of the rights to the roads that they currently do have, we'd probably see that attitude adjustment in that small percentage of motorists.

And obviously, I've only been addressing roads here. A parking space for an automobile is a huge waste for a single bike. There are much more efficient ways of parking bikes than in 7 x 12 sections of pavement. Showers are nice to have at workplaces for more than just cycle-commuters but of course, I don't oppose them. The physical effort put forth by a cyclist is tremendously greater than a motorist so giving that person a place to freshen up is a nice to have (just like a bike rack for parking). I happen to commute without either though.

[Spike3905]

...There is no other system created anywhere in the world that allows a cyclist to have the freedom of travel the way we currently do in the US using the existing roads as vehicle drivers. I also believe that the current infrastructure (I'm not addressing the attitudes of people now) is fantastic for cycling. An attitude adjustment would be nice for a small percentage of motorists but it's nothing to get overly worked up about. An attitude adjustment for cyclists, on the other hand, could vastly change the overall attitude towards cycling in this country. If cyclists started acting as though they really did have all of the rights to the roads that they currently do have, we'd probably see that attitude adjustment in that small percentage of motorists.

Thanks for the time you took to prepare your response. But, with all due respect, I find your argument so absurd that I'm not going to spend a similar amount of time rebutting it. Suffice it to say that I reject your claim that America is a cyclist's paradise that can only be improved by adjusting the attitude of cyclists. If that were true, the bicycle advocacy agenda would consist of little more than lobbying for more money for (a) the roadbuilding industry; and (b) a Maoist reeducation camp for reluctant cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

Thanks for the time you took to prepare your response. But, with all due respect, I find your argument so absurd that I'm not going to spend a similar amount of time rebutting it. Suffice it to say that I reject your claim that America is a cyclist's paradise that can only be improved by adjusting the attitude of cyclists. If that were true, the bicycle advocacy agenda would consist of little more than lobbying for more money for (a) the roadbuilding industry; and (b) a Maoist reeducation camp for reluctant cyclists.
The fact is that there is money, even careers, to be made from the bike facility stuff, regardless of whether they actually do anything to help bicyclists and bicycling, and there is little money to be made from advocating existing roads to be used as is by bicyclists. Guess what happens? As always, follow the money.

[The Human Car]

My translation: So why do you keep taking (safe) passing out of the equation?

Did I get that right? :)

If so, my answer: Where did I do that?
Did that actually come off my keyboard? :eek: I need to get something fixed. :o

Good translation but I think I was trying to get the word easier into that the description of passing. What I am getting at is multi-lane roads facilitates easer passing, center turn lanes facilitates easier passing, low traffic volume facilitates easier passing, frequently pulsated traffic facilitates easier passing. And something I would like to see is the UNOL on multi-lane roads (Ultra Narrow Outside Lane, still usable by cars but narrow enough to discourage use by motorists.)

Outside of low traffic volume (and rarely (and controversial) multi-lane roads) you never hear of any of these designs being bike friendly. My point being if VC stressed the comfort of all road users more equitably we would see more stress on these designs but we don’t because VC stresses the exact same thing that the bike lane advocates stress… to keep bikes out of the way of cars.

Most state laws require bikes to stay to the right, cyclist have no more legal rights on leaving the right side of a WOL then a cyclist who lives in a mandatory use state have on leaving a bike lane. A WOL is a bike facility designed to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists both by law and by design.

[joejack951]

The fact is that there is money, even careers, to be made from the bike facility stuff, regardless of whether they actually do anything to help bicyclists and bicycling, and there is little money to be made from advocating existing roads to be used as is by bicyclists. Guess what happens? As always, follow the money.

Thanks for replying with exactly what I would have said :)

[joejack951]

Did that actually come off my keyboard? :eek: I need to get something fixed. :o

Good translation but I think I was trying to get the word easier into that the description of passing. What I am getting at is multi-lane roads facilitates easer passing, center turn lanes facilitates easier passing, low traffic volume facilitates easier passing, frequently pulsated traffic facilitates easier passing. And something I would like to see is the UNOL on multi-lane roads (Ultra Narrow Outside Lane, still usable by cars but narrow enough to discourage use by motorists.)

I agree with everything you have listed except for the last one. In areas with frequent intersections, I would prefer any of the above designs (aside from the UNOL) over a WOL. Being in the roadway reduces the number of merges I may need to make for various reasons, reduces potential right/left hooks to a very manageable level, gives me clean pavement to operate on, and clearly demonstrates to motorists that I have rights to that pavement. Now, ask most cyclists what they think of your ideas and they'll tell you that they would prefer dedicated space for cyclists on the roadway instead of any of your options. Bike lanes are the result of this desire for dedicated space.

Outside of low traffic volume (and rarely (and controversial) multi-lane roads) you never hear of any of these designs being bike friendly. My point being if VC stressed the comfort of all road users more equitably we would see more stress on these designs but we don’t because VC stresses the exact same thing that the bike lane advocates stress… to keep bikes out of the way of cars.

VC stresses how to use the roads as a vehicle driver, which does not always mean staying out of the way. VC stresses that if you act like a vehicle driver, you stand a much better chance of being treated like a driver than as a nuisance on the roads. VC stresses that any road can be cycled provided that the cyclist understands and can apply the skills necessary to operate on that type of road. Road design does not matter for VC. VC recognizes that often cyclists are moving slower than the normal speed of traffic and in order to make the environment more pleasant, additional pavement width that allows faster traffic to pass with less delay is a nice thing to have, but not necessary.

If there's common ground here, it's that when road design comes up, more thought than simply looking to provide extra pavement width for cyclists need to be considered. Heavily intersected roads are better off with lower speed limits and multiple narrow lanes while lightly intersected roads are more suited to higher speeds and a wide outside lane or shoulder. The terrain that the road crosses needs to be taken into consideration as well since most drivers will try to drive at the speed limit which may be ok on straight sections with good sightlines but not so around bends and over hill crests.

Most state laws require bikes to stay to the right, cyclist have no more legal rights on leaving the right side of a WOL then a cyclist who lives in a mandatory use state have on leaving a bike lane. A WOL is a bike facility designed to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists both by law and by design.

You are somewhat incorrect here. California has a mandatory bike lane law and so does Oregon. The difference is that the California law is only applicable when faster same direction exists whereas the Oregon law applies all the time regardless of traffic. Where there is not a mandatory bike lane law, every state's laws that I have read allow for cyclists to ride anywhere as long as faster same direction traffic does not exist. In the case of Pennsylvania, the far right rule does not even apply when there is more than one same direction lane. Cyclists are only required to use the right lane. PA wrote their laws correctly by simply applying the same laws to slow moving vehicles as they did to cyclists. In Delaware, on the other hand, cyclists are required to ride as far right as practicable even when there is a left lane while slow moving vehicles do not have this restriction. Of course, when the right lane is narrow, cyclists are allowed to use the full lane.

Also, the WOL can/should be used by any slow moving vehicle whereas bike lanes only restrict cyclists to that space.

[nova]

I don't think having a premise or idea or writing a book even if widely accepted makes any one a expert in a very broad sense. It makes them a expert for their own area this could be a city or county or even a entire state. But never country wide. Simply put condition vary to widely from city to city county to county state to state. Even in some cases road to road. A good example of a variance from road to road is jhonson road and hametown road near where i use to live. Hametown road was a pure joy to ride. Never any conflict or to near pass with a car no matter where your position was in the lane and on Johnson road my god you could be riding towards oncoming traffic and have a motorist going the same direction of you barley miss hitting you no i am not kidding (well maybe a little).Johnson road is a road where taking the lane was a must not to force a driver to pass you safely but to give you more room to escape their moronic passes that were with in 4 to 8 inches of you (based on a lazer tape measure fastened to my seat tube zeroed to my elbow/shoulder zone).

There fore i would consider my self a expert for my general area back then and for the area where i am at now i would consider my self a advanced rider. Ive only been here for a couple months. I would say that a huge percentage of posters here are experts in their general area covering between 5 and 30 miles radius.

[genec]

I agree with everything you have listed except for the last one. In areas with frequent intersections, I would prefer any of the above designs (aside from the UNOL) over a WOL. Being in the roadway reduces the number of merges I may need to make for various reasons, reduces potential right/left hooks to a very manageable level, gives me clean pavement to operate on, and clearly demonstrates to motorists that I have rights to that pavement. Now, ask most cyclists what they think of your ideas and they'll tell you that they would prefer dedicated space for cyclists on the roadway instead of any of your options. Bike lanes are the result of this desire for dedicated space.

I might agree with you except in the case of the often used high speed arterials around here... if on the other hand some method of making a "slow outside lane" was incorporated, then a narrow outside lane does make sense. But with 50 and 60MPH arterials, the aggravated motorist issue goes up considerably when they encounter slow cyclists.


VC stresses how to use the roads as a vehicle driver, which does not always mean staying out of the way. VC stresses that if you act like a vehicle driver, you stand a much better chance of being treated like a driver than as a nuisance on the roads. VC stresses that any road can be cycled provided that the cyclist understands and can apply the skills necessary to operate on that type of road. Road design does not matter for VC. VC recognizes that often cyclists are moving slower than the normal speed of traffic and in order to make the environment more pleasant, additional pavement width that allows faster traffic to pass with less delay is a nice thing to have, but not necessary.

If there's common ground here, it's that when road design comes up, more thought than simply looking to provide extra pavement width for cyclists need to be considered. Heavily intersected roads are better off with lower speed limits and multiple narrow lanes while lightly intersected roads are more suited to higher speeds and a wide outside lane or shoulder. The terrain that the road crosses needs to be taken into consideration as well since most drivers will try to drive at the speed limit which may be ok on straight sections with good sightlines but not so around bends and over hill crests.


All of the above makes sense... but it also depends on co-operation from motorists... motorists that understand their responsibility to not over drive their sightlines, to not speed (thus eliminating usable gaps) and the rights of cyclists to be on the road and to be treated as a driver of a vehicle.

[joejack951]

I might agree with you except in the case of the often used high speed arterials around here... if on the other hand some method of making a "slow outside lane" was incorporated, then a narrow outside lane does make sense. But with 50 and 60MPH arterials, the aggravated motorist issue goes up considerably when they encounter slow cyclists.

How frequently are those roads intersected? If not often, then extra lane width is probably the most desireable option. Enforcing a slow outside lane would be about as manageable as enforcing the current speed limits. The extra lane width with no striping would discourage motorists from travelling at high speed in close proximity to each other unlike the UNOL (based on what I've seen of motorists' actions).

If the roads are frequently intersected, I think the best thing that could be done is a lower speed limit such as 35mph, instead of 45-50mph which is common where I live. Keep the lanes narrow which will encourage slower speeds and keep cyclists in the travelled way instead of in right hook territory. Extra lane width (or a shoulder/bike lane) only seems to encourage motorists to scream and yell about where cyclists should be (a daily occurence for me)..

All of the above makes sense... but it also depends on co-operation from motorists... motorists that understand their responsibility to not over drive their sightlines, to not speed (thus eliminating usable gaps) and the rights of cyclists to be on the road and to be treated as a driver of a vehicle.

This morning I witnessed a great demonstration of where cyclists stand in regards to acting as vehicle drivers compared to motorists.

Worst motorist encounter this morning: Motorist passes on right in right turn lane while honking and gesturing.

Worst cyclist encounter this morning: Guy on a recumbent approaches an intersection travelling in the right turn only lane. To his left are two straight lanes with currently stopped traffic (including me) and one left turn only lane which has the green. He's rolling up to the light and as it turns green for straight traffic (possibly unbeknownst to him) he turns left across both lanes of straight traffic and proceeds through the intersection to the right of the left turning traffic who still had the green. I gasped as I watched this sudden unexpected manuever and thankfully the straight traffic did not jump the light as this guy would have been toast.

So who needs more understanding of their responsibility on the roads?

[genec]

This morning I witnessed a great demonstration of where cyclists stand in regards to acting as vehicle drivers compared to motorists.

Worst motorist encounter this morning: Motorist passes on right in right turn lane while honking and gesturing.

Worst cyclist encounter this morning: Guy on a recumbent approaches an intersection travelling in the right turn only lane. To his left are two straight lanes with currently stopped traffic (including me) and one left turn only lane which has the green. He's rolling up to the light and as it turns green for straight traffic (possibly unbeknownst to him) he turns left across both lanes of straight traffic and proceeds through the intersection to the right of the left turning traffic who still had the green. I gasped as I watched this sudden unexpected manuever and thankfully the straight traffic did not jump the light as this guy would have been toast.

So who needs more understanding of their responsibility on the roads?

I too have seen some pretty egregious moves by people on bikes (note, I did not say "cyclists" ;) )

I try to reward those I see with pamphlets supplied to me by a member of the local bike coalition... these point out the lawful way to ride a bike and lead to the bikesafe web pages.

But on the other hand, the shear number of motorists out there that do dumb things is a far greater problem. That one cyclist risked his life, but not the life of the motorists that he faces. The same risk element is quite different for one cyclist that may encounter several poor or aggressive motorists out there on a single ride... not to mention the risk to other motorists from those poor or aggressive drivers.

By shear volume, speed and mass, bad motorist represent a greater threat to us all.

[joejack951]

I too have seen some pretty egregious moves by people on bikes (note, I did not say "cyclists" ;) )

I try to reward those I see with pamphlets supplied to me by a member of the local bike coalition... these point out the lawful way to ride a bike and lead to the bikesafe web pages.

But on the other hand, the shear number of motorists out there that do dumb things is a far greater problem. That one cyclist risked his life, but not the life of the motorists that he faces. The same risk element is quite different for one cyclist that may encounter several poor or aggressive motorists out there on a single ride... not to mention the risk to other motorists from those poor or aggressive drivers.

By shear volume, speed and mass, bad motorist represent a greater threat to us all.

If I hadn't been running behind getting to work already, I might have tried to chase that guy down. As it was, I was late and on my heavy bike with lights, fenders, and such since it was supposed to rain and I wouldn't be getting home until 10pm or so that night. I stand a good chance of seeing him again though as it's the road right outside my neighborhood.

While I agree that motorists do pose a big threat to everyone given that they are moving thousands of pounds around, I still think it's worthless to stress to cyclists, who do things like I guy I mentioned previously, that motorists' behavior needs to be modified. If you have the resources, go after all those motorists. Otherwise, do what you can to make sure YOU (and any fellow cyclists who are willing to listen) are doing everything you can for your own safety if you want to have an impact.